click to show more information

click to hide/show information About your Search

20121201
20121231
Search Results 0 to 10 of about 11 (some duplicates have been removed)
that the political traction they could not get before the election in attacking the president for the benghazi attack, they would try to get instead after the election by attacking susan rice for the benghazi attack. they attacked her specifically for going on sunday morning talk shows after the attack and delivering the administration's talking points about what was believed to have happened there. it later emerged that those talking points were exactly what the intelligence agencies told the administration they should say about the attack. senator mccain described that as the worst cover-up he had ever seen in his life. he said it was worse than watergate. he said that that susan rice, she's not very bright. actually used that phrase about her, "not very bright." part of the reason susan rice became such a high-profile potential nominee was because of that criticism from republican senators. more than that, it ended up becoming a very high-profile potential nomination because of the president's response to that republican criticism. >> let me say specifically about susan rice, she has done exemplar
to do with benghazi and was simply making a presentation based on intelligence that she had received and to besmirch her reputation is outrageous. >> does this mean we get susan rice back? i know, i know, it's a done deal. we are told that the president is picking john kerry to be secretary of state after hillary clinton. but if this was supposedly the reason that susan rice could not be considered for that job as well, this is out now, and it says in a fair world, we would get susan rice back in contention. this is the report of the independent accountability review board that was authorized by law as part of the response to the attack on the u.s. consulate in benghazi, the attack that killed a serving u.s. ambassador for the first time since the 1970s. ambassador chris stevens and three other americans were killed in an armed assault by a militant group on a u.s. facility that was in an area known for its armed militant groups. the attack was concurrent with worldwide protests at u.s. facilities throughout the muslim world against a cartoonish anti-islam video that had been posted
.s. consulate in benghazi in libya on september 11th of the year. the panel has just released its findings, and the report appears to place a lion's share of the blame for that attack on the u.s. state department. our own andrea mitchell is going through this report as we speak. again, it has just come out. but she reports tonight that the panel has found, quote, systemic failures in leadership management deficiencies at senior levels within two bureaus of the state department. those two bureaus described as diplomatic security and near eastern affairs. according to this report, those leadership deficiencies led to a security posture at that u.s. consulate in benghazi that was, quote, grossly inadequate to deal with the attack that took place. according to "the new york times" and their reporting on this report, secretary of state hillary clinton has accepted all 29 of the panel's recommendations, including a number of those recommendations that are and will presumably remain classified. again, the report on -- the independent report on the attacks on the u.s. consulate in benghazi in liby
Search Results 0 to 10 of about 11 (some duplicates have been removed)